So, this is what you classify as friends? A bunch of people who want you gone, constantly arguing with you and calling you stupid. Explains your opinion on friends quite well.

That was said intentional and yes often when I say "friend", it's acquaintance, but not in this situation.

Locke wrote:

Unless I misunderstand, I think Sweetums disliked the self-martyring "nice guys," who use their "niceness" as an excuse to "finish last." As a "nice guy" myself, I can tell you if you're finishing last you're probably going for the wrong girls. Especially if you're being nice to a girl and expecting anything other than friendship. Pro-tip: If the only way you can get with a girl is by being her emotional crutch, keep her as a friend and find a different girl to date. You can't be a nice guy if you're feeling bitter - you're just lying about your true intentions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very real with myself. I just typically enjoy female companionship over men because many of the guys that I'm around hobbies are just sports and beer. I don't drink and unless it's basketball, I don't like sports.

My goal isn't to have female friends to become more than friends with, that's just a possible bonus. So, if I'm just a "friend", then that doesn't necessarily mean anything bad as long as I have other female friends. Matter of fact, I'm always the one insisting a "downplay" of our friendship if she's already in a relationship.

The women I know have this belief, or at least expresses it, that men and women can be completely platonic friends. While, I believe that is possible, I don't think it is highly likely. I'm honest with myself and with my friends by telling them that I respect them and wont ever try anything funny, but I'm also a guy, so if you present the opportunity, I will take it. I'm just being real with them

When I came back to the states, I went out to the movies and later dinner with an old colleague of mine. We ended up talking for hours and she explained how her boyfriend was always jealous of her male friends stating that they all, especially me, want to sleep with her. I told her that's probably true, but there is a difference between wanting to and trying to. She completely agreed. She didn't see the need to reduce her male friends as her relationship becomes more serious, but I'm sure she will. My theory on that scenario is, jealousy will always prevail, so it's just best to avoid it as much as possible.

Sweetums wrote:

Look, Alma, I can't help it if you're too egocentric to be capable the slightest inkling of self reflection and empathy. That's only something a professional can help. Bring what you wrote to a psychiatrist, or even a therapist. You can probably easily find resources as a military member. Bring in what you wrote, verbatim. Listen to their honest assessment. It might agree with you, it might agree with me, it might be completely different!

I would never even refer to my friends issues as @#%^ed up. I don't call their problems "sob stories." I respect the fact that some things will upset them, and that unhappiness is not a zero sum game.

The fact that this is so opaque to you has nothing to do with any kind of false reading on my part, but with your own inadequacies to even begin to withhold your contempt and examine the language you choose. This does not mean you literally hate your friends. Whether you're fully cognizant of it or not, this is something you need a trained outside observer to help you get through, because your view of what women owe you for basic kindness really does seem a bit skewed. You don't lose out when someone "only" wants to be your friend. I've been there. I know that it stings when a friend rejects you. I don't feel that I lost out by not eventually being in a relationship with her. I don't feel that I finished last, just in a different place.

Friends will be there after a relationship fails. They're going to be the ones picking up the pieces. Friendship is precious, and if you really do view them as friends, you owe it to them to examine some of your latent hostility. This doesn't make you a bad person.

Your choice of words may not have been deliberate, but they certainly reflect a lot about your attitudes, because you're either too socially unaware to realize what crosses the line, or you just don't care. I sincerely hope it isn't the latter. Honestly think about what you wrote, and where it could have come from.

I'm quite serious about a mental health professional. It doesn't mean you're crazy. Everyone could use it from time to time.

I probably started changing the tone from hostile to more empathetic because I am coming up on math and prescription amphetamines

Read above. You're not a psychiatrist, or at least a good one. A real friend will tell you when you're effed up or in an effed up situation. If your friend watches you destroy yourself without telling you anything, then s/he isn't a friend. I had big discussion about this with a co-worker asking if he did the right thing by telling someone that he needed to stop spending so much time with another female co-worker. "Perception is reality" in the military. He felt that although the guy might not have wanted to hear that, as someone who cares, something should be said. The problem wasn't so much of what he said, but how he said. When he said, he was completely wasted and obnoxious. I told him exactly that and he not only appreciated that, but realized his drinking problem.

So, no. If you want to live in fairy la-la- candy land of happiness, then so be it. I want to know the truth. If I'm effed up, tell me, then I can fix it. This is completely your emotional interpretation of chosen words. You freaked out over "pregnant friend"! WTF? Like I said, you're the one that should be getting examined. I'll only concede that the term "sob story" was probably a little too harsh, but in my defense I didn't discriminate "sob stories" from "unfortunate stories" in that statement.

My goal isn't to have female friends to become more than friends with, that's just a possible bonus. So, if I'm just a "friend", then that doesn't necessarily mean anything bad as long as I have other female friends. Matter of fact, I'm always the one insisting a "downplay" of our friendship if she's already in a relationship.

The women I know have this belief, or at least expresses it, that men and women can be completely platonic friends. While, I believe that is possible, I don't think it is highly likely. I'm honest with myself and with my friends by telling them that I respect them and wont ever try anything funny, but I'm also a guy, so if you present the opportunity, I will take it. I'm just being real with them

... have you seen "When Harry Met Sally"? Because you seem to be paraphrasing it quite well Personally I have several friends I would not sleep with, for a variety of reasons (looks usually not one of them). Being platonic is perfectly easy with them. If you feel attracted to a person sexually, yes, then you'll have issues. Eventually you just need to figure out that not every woman is for ***.

Never claimed to be. I just have a skill called "reading comprehension."

I was fairly bored, so I decided to write it from a different perspective, because either way, you're not going to admit to anything that puts you in a negative light. Past performance might not be a guarantee of future results, but it predicts it well enough.

It's pretty unanimous, but I guess you're just in denial.

Edited, May 6th 2011 1:07pm by Sweetums

____________________________

Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.

I said an abortion would be redundant if the foetus was guaranteed to die. What's your point? How does that relate even remotely to what I said about the viability of the foetus outside of the uterus?

People don't say "Well it was probably going to die any way", they say it is not a viable life form in it's own right, which is a true statement. I can't explain this to you any more than I already have. You're starting to **** me off now, are you deliberately trying to be a troll? Or are you just ******* functionally retarded?

Sorry, I accidentally skipped you.

My point is that the statement "it's not a viable life form in it's own right" is something people say to justify their action of the abortion. The fetus at 24 weeks in 1 day has not changed significantly from a day earlier. Nor did the baby significantly change from 23 weeks and 6 days to 24 weeks. The fact that the probability of living outside of the uterus increases as time progresses doesn't change anything.

If it's only 50% chance of survival, then that's 50%. You're looking at the glass half empty instead of half full. So, why is abortion 100% authorized on something that has a 50% survival rate? I mean, if your argument is being able to live outside the uterus, a full 9 month new born will 100% die outside of the uterus if not taken care of. You have to take care of it, which is why you can get charged if your baby dies due to neglect.

Nilatai wrote:

Then your question was redundant. What's your point? Are you trying to play semantics?

My question wasn't redundant.

I stated that I interpreted a fact as objectively true, i.e. not false. Furthermore, I said that although you may add additional information unto a fact to make it more factual, anything contrary to that fact discredits it's validity.

You countered to say that was just an instance that you provided and that new facts can reduce the margin of error from old facts. So, I asked you to provide an example of reducing a fact's error. You stated the fact of gravity exists and how additional facts on gravity gave us a better understanding of how gravity works. I replied that was fine and dandy, but the original fact in question "gravity exists" didn't have an error. It was the supporting facts that had errors and were later adjusted.

So, I ask again, provide me a scenario where you can reduce the margin of error of a fact with contradictory information.

Belkira wrote:

Want to try answering the question now? A fertilized egg will turn into a human being without any help from me or anyone? That leaving it completely alone it will grow all by itself?

I didn't realize that I avoided a question. By fertilized egg, do you mean a zygote? If so, yes a zygote will turn into a human being without help from you or anyone else. We were talking about eggs and sperms. An egg or sperm will never turn into a zygote which will turn into a child without some intervention.

Belkira wrote:

Because I love my parents and I expect love and kindness from them in return. If they had me and kept me and treated me like sh*t, then I wouldn't have a very good life, then, would I?

Oh, I get your "point." It's tenuous at best. You seem to be completely missing mine, however.

I obviously am missing your point. You're making a connection of crappy parents and a crappy life from that one statement. My assumption is that you're making that connection because you have an emotional attachment to that parasite that was once you. Else, you wouldn't care.

Belkira wrote:

No, I understand that. I have heard that expression many, many times. Mostly from guys who are ****** off that a girl they like is not attracted to them and they want to blame her for it.

While that maybe true at times, as I'm reminded of someone who fits that bill, that isn't the scenario that I'm talking about. I'm referring to the scenario of a man and a woman who HAVE some form of a relationship, but it doesn't develop because she is interested in other types of guys. After a few bad relationships, she either goes back to find the nice guy, regrets not staying with the nice guy and or realizes that she should be with someone more like the nice guy.

Although a woman has fault in the scenario, majority of the fault goes to the dirtbag boyfriend for, well, being a douchebag. If he weren't a douchebag, then the two would be a happy couple. Instead, there's a burned angry woman around who don't trust men claiming that "There are no more good guys" . Which at then end, makes it harder for the good guys to prove themselves.

I didn't realize that I avoided a question. By fertilized egg, do you mean a zygote? If so, yes a zygote will turn into a human being without help from you or anyone else. We were talking about eggs and sperms. An egg or sperm will never turn into a zygote which will turn into a child without some intervention.

Interesting. So a zygote is now viable outside a woman's body.

Almalieque wrote:

I obviously am missing your point. You're making a connection of crappy parents and a crappy life from that one statement. My assumption is that you're making that connection because you have an emotional attachment to that parasite that was once you. Else, you wouldn't care.

My point is, to a woman who does not want to be pregnant, the fetus is a parasite. To a woman who wants a baby, the fetus is not a parasite. It is instead something to be celebrated.

And your assumption is wrong. I would, since I have been birthed, have an emotional attachment to my parents. If they tell me something hurtful, I will feel sad.

Almalieque wrote:

While that maybe true at times, as I'm reminded of someone who fits that bill, that isn't the scenario that I'm talking about. I'm referring to the scenario of a man and a woman who HAVE some form of a relationship, but it doesn't develop because she is interested in other types of guys. After a few bad relationships, she either goes back to find the nice guy, regrets not staying with the nice guy and or realizes that she should be with someone more like the nice guy.

Although a woman has fault in the scenario, majority of the fault goes to the dirtbag boyfriend for, well, being a douchebag. If he weren't a douchebag, then the two would be a happy couple. Instead, there's a burned angry woman around who don't trust men claiming that "There are no more good guys" . Which at then end, makes it harder for the good guys to prove themselves.

You see the bold and underline? I admitted that was probably the case.

No, if you had truly admitted that, you would quit telling people to "prove" things to you. You'd quit insisting that your (alleged) experience with computer science, which has absolutely no crossover with any of the physical sciences whatsoever, is somehow relevant because it has the word "science" in it. You've done neither of these things, ergo you've admitted nothing, largely owing to the fact that you are a moron.

"Truly admitted it", that doesn't even make sense. I was going to respond back to you, but your bold sentence tells me that you're a deceived idiot and there is no point in further trying to explain anything to you. You remind me of the EE majors who act like they know everything, but really have no clue what is going on. Your knowledge in one area or field doesn't automatically make you knowledgeable of any other field.. I acknowledge that fact, but it seems that you haven't.

By the way, I'm not sure an appeal to numbers really works here. Think about it, you all despise Almalique. From any reasonable person's perspective, and (luckily, or there'd be no applicability) many unreasonable people's perspectives, you're not a reliable source of feedback. That holds true no matter how many of you say the same thing, especially as you're not functioning independently in doing so.

____________________________

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

By the way, I'm not sure an appeal to numbers really works here. Think about it, you all despise Almalique.

There's a reason for that though. That in itself may be a reason to look into some help. And its not like its one group, its everyone. People who normally argue amongst themselves are uniting against him. That's pretty telling.

My goal isn't to have female friends to become more than friends with, that's just a possible bonus. So, if I'm just a "friend", then that doesn't necessarily mean anything bad as long as I have other female friends. Matter of fact, I'm always the one insisting a "downplay" of our friendship if she's already in a relationship.

The women I know have this belief, or at least expresses it, that men and women can be completely platonic friends. While, I believe that is possible, I don't think it is highly likely. I'm honest with myself and with my friends by telling them that I respect them and wont ever try anything funny, but I'm also a guy, so if you present the opportunity, I will take it. I'm just being real with them

... have you seen "When Harry Met Sally"? Because you seem to be paraphrasing it quite well Personally I have several friends I would not sleep with, for a variety of reasons (looks usually not one of them). Being platonic is perfectly easy with them. If you feel attracted to a person sexually, yes, then you'll have issues. Eventually you just need to figure out that not every woman is for ***.

Well if I think a female that I'm not interested in might get emotionally attached, I try to keep my distance or continually state my position of the relationship.

I disagree with having a problem with being sexually attracted to a friend. I only believe it becomes a problem when you set out on acting on your feelings. It's impossible to avoid the scenario of working or being around someone that you're sexually attracted to where acting on your actions will be a bad idea. That's part of growing up. I can work with a woman who I think is sexually attractive and not try to come onto her and that skills carry over with your female friends. It's all about situational awareness.

Belkira wrote:

Interesting. So a zygote is now viable outside a woman's body.

? No? Neither is a man's sperm..

As I told Nilatai, a fully birthed child isn't capable of living without assistance. What are you trying to get at? When does it end?

Belkira wrote:

My point is, to a woman who does not want to be pregnant, the fetus is a parasite. To a woman who wants a baby, the fetus is not a parasite. It is instead something to be celebrated.

No matter how you see the "thing", it's the same in both cases. Simply changing the name doesn't change what it is.

Belkira wrote:

And your assumption is wrong. I would, since I have been birthed, have an emotional attachment to my parents. If they tell me something hurtful, I will feel sad.

As I told Nilatai, a fully birthed child isn't capable of living without assistance. What are you trying to get at? When does it end?

You stated that a sperm or an egg does not develop into a child without help. That a zygote was a stage in human development. I pointed out that sperm and eggs are also stages in human development. You stated that they could not develop into a child without assitance, but that a zygote would, with no help from you or anyone. But that's not true. A zygote, too, needs assistance to develop into a child. Which makes your argument against sperm and eggs moot.

Almalieque wrote:

No matter how you see the "thing", it's the same in both cases. Simply changing the name doesn't change what it is.

I understand that. I have no idea what your point is.

Almalieque wrote:

But how is that hurtful? That's my question.

It's hurtful because my mother said something mean to me. She could just as easily have said, "I never wanted a girl, I wish you had been a boy" and it would have hurt just as much because it would mean that I was a disappointment and a source of annoyance to her.

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:

lol

You see fault with that scenario?

I find you funny, watching you try to justify why you blame women, then watching you try to pretend you're really blaming some random guy that the girl found more interesting than you. The whole thing is incredibly telling, and really, it explains a lot about why you feel the way you do about a lot of things.

Your knowledge in one area or field doesn't automatically make you knowledgeable of any other field.. I acknowledge that fact, but it seems that you haven't.

That is my entire fucking point. God ****, how can you possibly be this dense? The whole point is that you have no knowledge in any of the physical sciences, so quit pointing out your comp sci degree as though it has any relevance in the least.

You stated that a sperm or an egg does not develop into a child without help. That a zygote was a stage in human development. I pointed out that sperm and eggs are also stages in human development. You stated that they could not develop into a child without assitance, but that a zygote would, with no help from you or anyone. But that's not true. A zygote, too, needs assistance to develop into a child. Which makes your argument against sperm and eggs moot.

Uh, you misunderstood, either on purpose or not. A sperm WILL NEVER TURN INTO a child. An EGG WILL NEVER TURN INTO a child. Meaning, if left alone, it will not grow into a child. You do not have to do anything for the zygote to turn into a child. It will develop naturally. If that weren't the case, then why are we having this discussion on abortion? You lose eggs during your menstrual cycle right? Just wait for the zygote to exit. If that doesn't work, just ejaculate it out.

You have not proven anything and quite honestly you're wasting a whole lot of time instead of just saying that you're wrong. You know that a sperm can't turn into a child and an egg can not turn into a child. Separate, they are nothing. There's absolutely no chance of life occurring, it doesn't start until the zygote.

If you want to argue that a sperm can magically turn into a person, then so be it, but you sound silly.

Belkira wrote:

I understand that. I have no idea what your point is.

My point is that your statement of calling it different names is irrelevant.

Belkira wrote:

It's hurtful because my mother said something mean to me. She could just as easily have said, "I never wanted a girl, I wish you had been a boy" and it would have hurt just as much because it would mean that I was a disappointment and a source of annoyance to her.

So, my assumption was right. You have an emotional attachment to the cells. According to you, the cells don't represent a person or anything, just a parasite. So, you shouldn't be offended by that because you weren't anything until after 24 weeks (or whatever the cut off is).

Belkira wrote:

I find you funny, watching you try to justify why you blame women, then watching you try to pretend you're really blaming some random guy that the girl found more interesting than you. The whole thing is incredibly telling, and really, it explains a lot about why you feel the way you do about a lot of things.

That is my entire ******* point. God ****, how can you possibly be this dense? The whole point is that you have no knowledge in any of the physical sciences, so quit pointing out your comp sci degree as though it has any relevance in the least.

Majivo wrote:

First of all, you are an idiot in all sciences; this is a necessary subset of you being an idiot in all things in general. Second, your (alleged) knowledge of comp sci is one hundred percent irrelevant here. Therefore, please quit referring to it as if it matters one bit.

Your level of ignorance and stupidity is frightening. Not only did you create an entire circle, arguing over something that was already stated, you don't even realize it. When someone even tries to attempt to demonstrate your flaw in thinking, you still don't notice it. You're just stuck in "Physics" mode or whatever study you proclaim...

You do not have to do anything for the zygote to turn into a child. It will develop naturally.

So I can leave mine on the kitchen counter and they'll grow into a child? Sweet! Makes have an abortion SO much easier.

Almalieque wrote:

If that weren't the case, then why are we having this discussion on abortion? You lose eggs during your menstrual cycle right? Just wait for the zygote to exit. If that doesn't work, just ejaculate it out.

A newborn will die on a kitchen counter also... WTF is your point? You support child neglect? Interesting?

You do not have to do anything for the zygote to turn into a child. It will develop naturally.

So I can leave mine on the kitchen counter and they'll grow into a child? Sweet! Makes have an abortion SO much easier.

Almalieque wrote:

If that weren't the case, then why are we having this discussion on abortion? You lose eggs during your menstrual cycle right? Just wait for the zygote to exit. If that doesn't work, just ejaculate it out.

A newborn will die on a kitchen counter also... WTF is your point? You support child neglect? Interesting?

My point is I have a fUcking send of humor and you don't.

I only support Alma neglect. And now I feel very dirty having responded to you.

You do not have to do anything for the zygote to turn into a child. It will develop naturally.

So I can leave mine on the kitchen counter and they'll grow into a child? Sweet! Makes have an abortion SO much easier.

Almalieque wrote:

If that weren't the case, then why are we having this discussion on abortion? You lose eggs during your menstrual cycle right? Just wait for the zygote to exit. If that doesn't work, just ejaculate it out.

A newborn will die on a kitchen counter also... WTF is your point? You support child neglect? Interesting?

My point is I have a fUcking send of humor and you don't.

I only support Alma neglect. And now I feel very dirty having responded to you.

I'll go get drunk so it doesn't happen again.

My bad.. When your joke is equivalent to other posters' arguments, I can't tell them apart...

Uh, you misunderstood, either on purpose or not. A sperm WILL NEVER TURN INTO a child. An EGG WILL NEVER TURN INTO a child. Meaning, if left alone, it will not grow into a child. You do not have to do anything for the zygote to turn into a child. It will develop naturally. If that weren't the case, then why are we having this discussion on abortion? You lose eggs during your menstrual cycle right? Just wait for the zygote to exit. If that doesn't work, just ejaculate it out.

You have not proven anything and quite honestly you're wasting a whole lot of time instead of just saying that you're wrong. You know that a sperm can't turn into a child and an egg can not turn into a child. Separate, they are nothing. There's absolutely no chance of life occurring, it doesn't start until the zygote.

I completely understand. You don't. You're saying a sperm will never turn into a child unassisted. You need to merge it with an egg. Same with the egg, it has to merge with a sperm cell. But you seem to think that a zygote will magically turn into a child with no help from you or anyone else. Your exact words. My point is that the zygote needs assistance, just like the sperm and egg do. They need the womb in a woman's body. And, as a matter of fact, almost half of fertilized eggs DO exit naturally. It's called a miscarriage.

As for "wasting time," every single post involving you is a waste of time. You never prove anything, but you keep arguing and "wasting time." I understand and have accepted that.

Almalieque wrote:

If you want to argue that a sperm can magically turn into a person, then so be it, but you sound silly.

Which is funny, considering you're arguing that a zygote magically turns into a person, and that's not true. It needs help. From the mother. Get it...?

Almalieque wrote:

My point is that your statement of calling it different names is irrelevant.

Ok. So...?

Almalieque wrote:

So, my assumption was right. You have an emotional attachment to the cells. According to you, the cells don't represent a person or anything, just a parasite. So, you shouldn't be offended by that because you weren't anything until after 24 weeks (or whatever the cut off is).

No, dimwit. According to me, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then the cells don't represent a person or anything to her. Just a parasite. If the woman wants a baby, then the cells represent a baby. Your analogy is stupid. If my mother had aborted me, I wouldn't care. Because I wouldn't be here to care.

I completely understand. You don't. You're saying a sperm will never turn into a child unassisted.

No, it wont ever happen period.

Belkira wrote:

You need to merge it with an egg. Same with the egg, it has to merge with a sperm cell.

Yes

Belkira wrote:

But you seem to think that a zygote will magically turn into a child with no help from you or anyone else. Your exact words. My point is that the zygote needs assistance, just like the sperm and egg do. They need the womb in a woman's body.

You're not assisting anything if it happens naturally. Like I said, a newborn child needs assistance to live, do you support child neglect?

Belkira wrote:

And, as a matter of fact, almost half of fertilized eggs DO exit naturally. It's called a miscarriage.

So like I said, what's all the huss-fuss about? Let it exit naturally if you don't want it. Since it "needs the mother assistance", just do nothing and let it naturally exit. Problem solved.

Belkira wrote:

Which is funny, considering you're arguing that a zygote magically turns into a person, and that's not true. It needs help. From the mother. Get it...?

Read above.

Belkira wrote:

Ok. So...?

So... by being irrelevant, it added no value to the conversation, but you presented as if it did. I countered it to say it had no effect on the topic.

Belkira wrote:

No, dimwit. According to me, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then the cells don't represent a person or anything to her. Just a parasite. If the woman wants a baby, then the cells represent a baby.

WTF.. You just admitted above that it was irrelevant. You agreed that it doesn't matter if the woman wants to be pregnant or not. It doesn't freakin matter. The thing is the still the same thing in both scenarios. Just because you want an abortion doesn't make it something else and just because you want to have a child doesn't make it something else.

Belkira wrote:

Your analogy is stupid. If my mother had aborted me, I wouldn't care. Because I wouldn't be here to care.

It wasn't an analogy nor was that the point. The point was to show you that people have emotional attachments to their early stages of life because they know that represented them and not some parasite. By destroying that parasite, you are destroying that person. A parent knows that and that is why a "good" parent would never say that to their child, even if it were true.

More to the point is that connection is somehow lost when referencing to abortion. When pro-choice people talk, they say it's nothing but a group of cells that don't represent a person. Yet, you admit to be sad if your parents told you that they wanted to get rid of a some filthy 'ol parasite.

If you truly believed that those group of cells don't represent a person, then you shouldn't be upset unless they wanted to kill you AFTER the legal limit when society considers you a person. That isn't the case, because even you, considered yourself a person at 3 weeks in your mother.

Pla-Dow!!

Belkira wrote:

Poor Alma. He can't get a girlfriend because he's an idiot. :( I'm sure it really is every girl who "just wants to be friends" fault, too. We just don't understand what a special snowflake you are.

You truly are pathetic, I said "Nice guys finish last"... You reallllly don't understand what that means... I mean, it's in English.. even if you never heard it before, you should be able to figure out. Yet, you can't.. This only supports the misconceptions you have in every other argument.

As a child, I was locked in a cage with only a dictionary to keep me company.

snipped for siggy.

(I used to always forget my book for "creative reading" or whatever the free reading segment was in grade 5 class was, so I would read my dictionary)

____________________________

lolgaxe wrote:

When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

also why are people talking about abortion in a thread titled "Atheism or Agnosticism?"

I would really like to know how this is all related. I'm facinated.

____________________________

lolgaxe wrote:

When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

You truly are pathetic, I said "Nice guys finish last"... You reallllly don't understand what that means... I mean, it's in English.. even if you never heard it before, you should be able to figure out. Yet, you can't.. This only supports the misconceptions you have in every other argument.

"Nice guys finish last" is a phrase that losers use to console themselves when they find out they've been rejected by every woman they know. Unless you honestly believe that every well-off man is an asshole. Which, given the numerous other psychological issues you've evinced here, would not surprise me.